Pollins v. Steinle et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 2 Plaintiff's Request/Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; the Complaint in this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Clerk shall enter judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 6 Motion for service by the Marshals. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 12/4/14.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Hon. Roland Steinle; Hon. Roger E.)
Brodman; Tom Horne, Attorney General)
for the State of Arizona; Assistant)
Attorney General Michael Flynn; Hon.)
William Pauley; David Langer; Merrill)
)
Davidoff,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Kevin Pollins,

No. CV 14-1928-PHX-JAT
ORDER

18

Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The court has concluded that

19

Plaintiff’s complaint should be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is

20

allowed to be served. Therefore, the Court will do so in this order.

21

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

22

Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a district
court "shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines" that the
"allegation of poverty is untrue" or that the "action or appeal" is "frivolous or
malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or "seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines how prisoners can
file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez v. Smith, 203
F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000)("section 1915(e) applies to all in forma
pauperis complaints"). "It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only permits
but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails
to state a claim." Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4

"[A] complaint, containing both factual allegations and legal
conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Furthermore, "a finding
of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level
of the irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
recognized facts available to contradict them." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992). "A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or desire
to harm another." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

[]
A claim must be stated clearly enough to enable a defendant to frame
a responsive pleading. A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
"Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A complaint having the factual elements of a cause of action
present but scattered throughout the complaint and not organized into a "short
and plain statement of the claim" may be dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule
8(a). Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).
I
Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2-*3 (D. Ariz. 2005).

12

Complaint in this Case

13

The Complaint in this case fails to withstand screening. First, three Defendants (Hon.

14

Steinle, Brodman, and Pauley) are judges who are entitled to judicial immunity. See

15

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988); Mireles v Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Cleavinger v.

16

Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (1985); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386

17

U.S. 547 (1967).

18

Next, two Defendants (Horne and Flynn) are sued for actions taken in their capacity

19

as prosecutors and are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d

20

630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A prosecutor is protected by absolute immunity from liability for

21

damages under § 1983 ‘when performing the traditional functions of an advocate’ [citation

22

omitted]”.)

23

Finally, as to all Defendants, the “claim” in this case is barred by the doctrine of

24

Rooker-Feldman. Specifically, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims that are,

25

in effect, appeals of cases decided by state courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.

26

413 (1923); and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). In this case,

27

Plaintiff seeks to have this Court intervene in a state court post-judgment criminal restitution

28

matter because Plaintiff believes he is not getting paid quickly enough. This Court does not
-2-

1

have jurisdiction to administer state court restitution matters, nor to reconsider how the state

2

court is administering them. Accordingly, the entire complaint in this case is barred by

3

Rooker-Feldman.

4

Conclusion

5

Based on the foregoing,

6

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is

7

granted; the Complaint in this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and the Clerk

8

of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for service by the Marshals (Doc. 6)
is denied as moot.
DATED this 4th day of December, 2014.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-